Dismissal of pro se litigant's appeals for alleged professional speech violations, cover-up of bankruptcy law violations, and abuse of discretion by acting as prosecutors under color of law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. By simultaneously dismissing 8 of Kinney’s pending appeals, did this 3 Judge panel abuse its discretion by violating Janus and NIFLA to cover-up acts by debtor Clark and her attorneys Marcus and Chomsky who used false statements under oath on amended bankruptcy schedules to circumvent bankruptcy law, and to punish a listed creditor (an attorney who is now a pro se litigant) because of his “professional speech”, so they joined forces to compel silence on “creditor” Kinney? Kinney’s speech was “professional speech” (for his client or himself) to Judges who did not adjudicate ; disputes, but acted as prosecutors under color of authority; and ignored violations of bankruptcy law in favor of Chapter 7 debtor Michele Clark who listed Kinney as a creditor and of other federal laws (e.g. for refusals by courts to give “honest services” and correct inconsistencies in state and federal rulings; the court’s failure to rule or withdraw; and/or Hobbs Act violations)? : 2. Was this dismissal an abuse of discretion by a panel acting as prosecutors-under color of law? 3. Did this appeal (4 of 8) have “merit” because it . : challenged false statements made under oath in Clark’s amended bankruptcy: schedules and state court motions based on unenforceable contracts? 4. Did this 3 Judge panel abyse its discretion by ignoring 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 federal civil rights violations to the detriment: of a “listed” creditor and repeated violations of bankruptcy law? ; i ft .